|
Letter 2,
continued.
3. Immediate tradition from the inspired
writer.* This can be to me nothing but mere human fallible
tradition; for if a person, whether really or pretendedly inspired,
publishes a book or writing, and declares that it contains doctrines
dictated by God to himself, his evidence to me is at least but human
evidence; and, therefore, uncertain and precarious: for if I believe it
written by inspiration, it is on his own authority, which is both human
and fallible. This being the case, how or in what manner shall I be able
to distinguish the truly inspired writer from the imposter, who should
pretend to the like privilege? And if we take the writers' words in all
cases, or give heed to their own testimony, we shall be liable to be
deceived and imposed on by every imposter or pretender to revelation;
and the want of a certain criterion, I apprehend, was the occasion that
in the first ages of the church so many different gospels appeared,
which by many were received with veneration, while others rejected them
as false and spurious: so that this immediate tradition can be no
evidence at all of the divine inspiration or infallibility of any book
or writing.
4. As to distant tradition, this evidence
must be proportionally less the farther it is removed from the original;
and if immediate tradition be but human fallible evidence, and a true
revelation cannot by it be distinguished from a false one, how can it be
the better ascertained by being more distant from the original
tradition? for the farther it is removed, the more it is weakened.
5. The evidence arising from education or
authority, if it proves any thing, proves that all the different books
which give rise to the different religions in the world, are all
inspired; for on this footing each person believes his to be so, and,
therefore, this can be no evidence at all.
6. Evidence arising from
examination.--This is the only one to be depended on; but then it is
entirely personal, and can never extend farther than the person who
examines: that is, it may appear probable to me, on examination, that
such a book was written under God's immediate influence and direction;
but if a book appears to me to be probably divinely revealed, this is no
reason why another person should believe the same, or that it should
appear to him in the same light, unless he likewise find it to be so on
his own examination.
LETTER 3.
Having myself examined the writings of
the New Testament, and likewise what is generally offered to support the
opinion of their inspiration, I declare it to be altogether insufficient
to me; for there does not appear any one circumstance, whether alleged
by others, or contained in the writings themselves, sufficient to prove
that either of the writers, at the time of writing, was under the
unerring guidance or special influence of God. Besides, there is not in
all the gospels any one expression intimating any such thing; neither do
the writers thereof lay any claim, or in the least pretend to any such
privilege or authority; nor indeed could such a prerogative be
consistently ever allowed them; for if every one of them at the time of
writing had been under the immediate influence of God, they would in
this case have given us the very same account of things without the
least difference or variation; for it is impossible, if God dictated to
them all the same history, that any variation or difference should be
found, unless it could be supposed that God could dictate different
facts in different histories of the same person. But that there are
frequent contradictions is evident.
From this circumstance, and many others,
I conclude that the writers of the New Testament could not be under the
infallible guidance of God; neither do I find that they published or
gave out their writings as such. And if they did not declare themselves
inspired, what authority or foundation could any one else have to
declare them so? On the contrary, it very evidently appears that there
were no writings deemed canonical in what is called the first ages of
Christianity, but the Old Testament! The famous Dodwell says, "We
have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the
times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarpus,
who wrote in the same order wherein I have named them, and after all the
writers of the New Testament except Jude and the two Johns, but in
Hermas you will not find one passage, nor any mention of the New
Testament; nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named; and
if sometimes they cite any passages like those we read in our gospels,
you will find them so much changed, and for the most part to
interpolated, that it cannot be known whether they produced them out of
our, or some other apocryphal gospels: nay, they sometimes cite passages
which most certainly are not in the present gospels."*
The first who wrote is Matthew, but at
what time he did write is uncertain; some fixing his date at one time,
and some at another. Again, some think he composed his gospel in the
Hebrew or Jerusalem dialect; for it seems the very language he wrote in
is uncertain; and it is confessed on all hands that no account can be
had of the original; so that if he wrote it in this language, it has
disappeared, how and in what manner nobody knows. And what is still more
extraordinary, the Judaizing Christians (for whose use it is said he
wrote) had a gospel under his name, but its authenticity was not
admitted by the other sects; not because they found, on comparing it
with the original, that it was corrupted, (for this they could not do
for want of the original,) but because it differed from or was
contradictory to the many other spurious gospels which they had
received, or to the opinion which the majority of that council which
settled the canon had embraced. But what will appear still more
surprising to you, is, that the Christian should offer to the world for
acceptance, as inspired and infallible, a Greek version, which is the
one now existing, and which most people mistake for the original of
Matthew's gospel, without any person's comparing this version with the
original, or indeed without knowing any thing either of the original or
the author of the version. Should they now, in an affair of such
importance, and before they pretend to fix on it the stamp of
infallibility, be certain that it was at least a true version? But
nothing of this kind is done, which appears to me such a proceeding as
nothing can justify.
They are not wanting, however, in giving
it all the authority that possibly can be given to it; and for this
purpose, and with this intention, some ascribe the version to St.
Matthew himself; others ascribe it to St. James, bishop of Jerusalem;
others to St. John; others to St. Paul; others to St. Luke; others to
St. Barnabas; and others again ascribe the translation tot the joint
labour of all the Apostles; so that the ascription to some one or other,
or all of the Apostles, proves nothing but their ignorance in this
important matter; and their uncertainty and disagreement prove how
little dependence ought to be placed on it, and their manifest intention
of imposing on the weak and credulous.
But can people be so serious in
persuading others to admit as infallible the version of a book, without
any knowledge of the original, or without knowing whether it is a true
version, or without as much as a certain knowledge of the person who
made this version? For should it be admitted that St. Matthew did write
a gospel, how are we to know, or how can it be ascertained, that the
version we now have, is from the original, or that it is a true and
faithful one? This we know, that in the last century an Armenian
translation was discovered, which a doctor of the Sorbonne thought to be
of great antiquity, and was of opinion might be very useful in
correcting the Greek text. This shows that they do not think it
infallible, for if it was, it would require no human correction.*
Of as little authority, or rather less,
if possible, is the gospel under the name of Mark. Some take this
Evangelist to be the disciple of Peter, and his interpreter; others take
him to be the same as John Mark, mentioned in the Acts; some think him
to have been a priest, while others say he was Peter's nephew. And as
regards the gospel, some take him to be the author of it, while others
ascribe it to Peter: others have it that he wrote from what he heard
from Peter by word of mouth in his lifetime; others say that Peter
dictated it to him; while others affirm that it was written after
Peter's death.
The same difference of opinion we find in
respect to the place where it was written; for while some affirm it to
have been written at Rome, others affirm it to have been written in
Egypt. "All their different sentiments," says our author,
"are enough to prove that the circumstances of time and place are
uncertain, when and where St. Mark composed his gospel. Men are as much
divided as to the language it was written in; some saying it was
composed in Greek, and others in Latin;"* and I add that these
different sentiments evidently prove that they know nothing concerning
its infallibility, or the inspiration of its author. It rather appears
much more probable, (which indeed is generally believed,) that this
gospel is no more than an abridgement made from Matthew; and then it
will signify but little who the author was, where, when, or in what
language he wrote. "For," says the aforementioned author,
"as far as may be judged by comparing the gospel of St. Mark with
St. Matthew's, the first is an abridgement of the second. St. Mark very
often uses the same terms, relates the same facts, and takes notice of
the same circumstances." So that, let it be an original or an
abridgement, its infallibility cannot be proved, and, therefore, can be
of no authority.
(To
be continued.) |
